Crystalysis1

cme2c

Dating yourself GU, only old tattoos have magnetic metal in them. Although you travel internationally so maybe you're getting cheap tattoos in the 3rd world.

Funny thing about the tattoos. Most hospitals don't even ask about tattoos when scheduling MRIs , only one I ever heard was a VA I worked at. All those old vets with Tats. You can still do it, but it can sting like a mother. I know if I was tattood where some of those guys were, I would politely decline.

Doppy

Well, I'm not a nuclear expert, but they did experts advising them when they ran the tests. This is what the article says:

robvberg

come on do you not understand why they are using the bags? The whole idea stems from people saying that they did not like the TSA people constantly pawing through there bags and making the suggestion on travel blogs and even here on flyertalk. The suggestion was to use clear plastic bags to keep things together in your checked bags and for carryon. This goes back to 9-11. By saying to use 3 oz bottles and quart bags it makes it easier to quickly move the line and make sure it is easier to move the line by not needing to search through the carry on. It helps to quickly insure that the liquids carried are approved. Was this not easy for people to understand, I thought it was self evident, just like asking to pull out the laptop. It is possible to inspect the laptops nearly as well in a bag as out but it is just a little slower and harder to do.

Also I still do not believe MKE has been willing to admit he is frustrated and wanted a confrontation. He could have exercised his speech rights much easier by handing out literature at the airport, holding a sign etc. No he wanted to tweak the security guards that are such an irritant to him. Would you still support him if pulled a mel gibson saying "Jews cause all wars" or more likely throw a racial slur on it like N*****. Is that not still protected speech? Really I think it is funny but again, I think that security that completely ignored something outside the norm would be negligent. I think most trained security would ask why and then realize it is peevish and not a threat, but again many people seem to be going over the top. Look at the school shootings. These are people that felt pushed and broke, even if it is just believed oppression. So someone who is obviously upset and blaming the TSA director for signing off on security directives that they feel necessary and ones imposed on them.

Remember this response was initially dictated by the english and was probably reciprocal initially just as other countries insure that minimum standards required by the US are implemented on both flights heading to US and even in general when practical. Who knows the initial comments and the actual intel passed.

GUWonder

I'm not that adventurous. I'd take a shot in the foot before getting a tattoo at some outside stand in a place where I couldn't drink the water without treating it or gambling on the outcome. Unlike the OP's plastic bag saying "Kip Hawley is an idiot", a change in that behavior would be "inviting trouble".

GUWonder

Your first paragraph is challenged, for the TSA still does -- as it always has since coming into being -- rummaged through belongings.

And your second and third paragraphs' assertions have been addressed and been shown to be misdirected and flawed several times over, on many pages in this thread. Are you familiar with that?

tom911

This is getting ready to start after the commmercials running right now. You can listen from the web site.

gfowler-ord-1k

Click the listen live icon http://www.foxnews.com/alancolmesradio/

robvberg

Yes but again that is usually a known shipper issue. You walk up and ask to ship on a special flight saying it needs to be there now and ask to pay cash and have never used the service before? Do you really not think someone will have this inspected. It would stand out.

I have to point out one thing. The threat is real, and should not be discounted. However, I did not advocate retrofitting every commercial airliner with countermeasures, as it's just not practical. I also disagree that carrying out an attack is as complex as you illustrated. There are plenty of these weapons available for sale in the middle east, and one doesn't even need to fire the missile at an aircraft in flight - just aiming it at a plane in a long line waiting to take off would set off the full fuel tanks and likely cause a chain reaction with damage to multiple aircraft.

Also I am unsure about a SAM7, too long since I studied opfor. I do know you are not launching most shoulder fired SAMs at ground targets. They launch out and drop a little before the main motor ignites. Therefore you aim to low and it plops on the ground. Now your basic point of firing an RPG AT is legit. Actually more likely because it would more likely cause a fire since it would not hit the engine. Again most small sams do not cause fire if they hit the engine because it is stressed for high pressures. Actually you would be better off buying a 50cal rifle with some AT shells. Greater effective distance and more chance of success at attacking an aircraft on the ground.


If I had to rank the realistic aviation threats - and I mean the real ones, not the ones that exist in Dubya's dreams - I would go as follows:

1) explosive cargo shipped
2) explosive placed onboard by aircraft service/catering
4) explosive set off on the ground in public terminal space
5) firearm attack inside public terminal space
6) incabin disruption causing injury/death
7) missile fired at aircraft on ground or in air

Sure we can come up with a better system. I already sent a long letter to the House Aviation Subcommittee on how to unwind the TSA and get a better system in place under FAA supervision.

I already wrote the committee and posted here countless times about the lack of technical progress with screening systems. I also posted about the availability of screening systems for water/gel/etc. available right now that aren't being used or even looked at.

Once the powers that be stop the knee jerk reactions and start planning long term, they can develop screening systems that approach the task from different angles and ensure as far as passengers go, the bases are covered to some degree.

I already envisioned a prototype long-length walk-through system (I can post the details later, it's too much typing right now) that combined an ultrasound scan for hard items on the body, a sniffer for explosive residue, a shoe scanner (Lord knows the Gov't will never drop their shoe fetish), and beside this tunnel, a 3-d CT imager that could scan the carry-on bags as the passenger is walking through their side of the system. The scanner would enable the operator to slice, zoom, separate and rotate items within the bag to reduce manual handling. I think another thread detailed a prototype of this portion of the scanner manufactured by a US company. The goal of my device was to allow a continuous flow of bags and people (no waiting) through the system with an automated alert mechanism that would allow the operator to quickly separate suspect bags/passengers and let the OK ones exit quickly.




The ultrasound scanner could project a sample outline of a person (avoid the privacy issue) and highlight the image where the item was detected on the body, while offering some automated suggestions on what the hard object could be to aid the next screener in resolving the alarm quickly. In fact, the image would be displayed on a second screen along with a playback of the person's walkthrough at the secondary lane so the screener knows exactly where and what to check before sending the passenger on their way.

Anyway, to make a long story shorter, there are certainly ways to improve the process, make it more efficient, etc. - but they could make it more pleasant and less stressful right away by changing the entire ethic of the TSA and making their pledge to customer service and fair treatment something real, and not a phony pledge stenciled on a sign somewhere. Like, for example, not causing a 25 minute fracas over what someone writes on their baggie or questioning the name of someone's cosmetic brand.[/QUOTE]

I agree with alot of your suggestions but some of the items are not practical and will take time to get set up for regular usage. Then they need to be built and installed probably after modifying airports. Actually your scanning machine is similar to the scanner in that arnold schwartzeneger movie. But very little of your stated threats are tied to the passenger cabin. The threat of bombs smuggled in through catering etc is probably the most significant. We know that smuggling occurs and this is a major issue but is not solved by lessening any other security procedures for passengers. I still say that it requires a longer planning time, and greater capabilities to do most of your other stated threats than many of the smaller cells we can expect in the near future.

I do not think we should stop working and changing security. It needs to be adaptive, and hopefully not driven by congress or the media. I would also agree with you that airport based security plans inspected by another organization like FAA is better. Most of your threats of bombings or shootings in the terminal are not likely. The terrorist looks at past actions. Rome was up and running after the attack there and even at LAX, when they had the shooting at el al. Did they actually even completely close the whole airport? I don't remember. they would get more bang for the money by hitting a less secured, even higher profile target since it would not really disrupt the traveling public.

Finally if we are still talking about domestic attacks? You need to get the personel and equipment in the US and positioned. It is very possible and real but not easy. Do you waste these resources and attempt this for shooting at an airport? If it happens it is more likely something like the recent school shooting but maybe done by a muslim.

GUWonder

Very "combative". Can't you tell?

SlowTrekker

First segment went well. ^

GUWonder

Thanks for reminding us. I'm listening to it .. and the commercials.

SlowTrekker

C'mon MKEbound, mention air cargo......Booyah..shameless FlyerTalk.com plug ^

Cholula

Ryan...I only caught the last part but excellent job!! And great plug for FT!!

dw8146

I thought commercial TV had too many commercials, this is by far and away worse. Hoping they leave enough time for listener feedback.